Web Services Description WG

24 Feb 2005

See also: IRC log


Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
David Booth, W3C
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, Leopold Franzens Universitat Innsbruck
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Jonathan Marsh, Chair/Microsoft
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle
Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies
Asir Vedamuthu, webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
sanjiva, Kevin



<dbooth> Scribe: sanjiva

<dbooth> ScribeNick: scribe

Minutes approved with no corrections

AI Review

Review of Action items [.1].  Editorial actions [.2].

?         2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
?         2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
                      table of components and properties.
?         2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec, 
                      except the frag-id which will move 
                      within media-type reg appendix.
?         2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section 
                      2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2
                      which talks about the syntax.
?         2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like: 
                      The Style property may constrain both 
                      input and output, however a particular 
                      style may constrain in only one 
                      direction. In Section of Part 1.
                      (subsumed by LC21 resolution?) 
?         2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option 
                      3 (redefining conformance in terms 
                      of building the component model) 
?         2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith 
                      proposal using an extension namespace. 
?         2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for 
                      rejecting LC75a
?         2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing 
                      the compromise proposal on formal objections.
?         2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
?         2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal 
                      and email it to the list as a response 
                      to the objection.
?         2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the 
                      test suite for the purpose of 
                      interoperability testing.
DONE      2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text 
                      about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that 
                      points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b) 
?         2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two 
                      proposals for the group for LC5f.
?         2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text 
                      for the editors.
?         2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer
DONE      2004-12-16: Part 3 Editors to update the HTTP binding with 
                      one of the above versions of text
?         2005-01-06: MTD Editors to add note saying content-type
                      is not sufficient, information to be 
                      provided via other mechanism, for 
                      example xsi:type"
?         2005-01-06: MTD editors implement proposal 2 for issue 
?         2005-01-06: Umit? to respond to Larry, "not dynamic, 
                      other solutions equally bad, not 
                      recommendation track, if problems
                      happy to consider those"
?         2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to 
                      implement issue 261 resolution
?         2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to 
                      implement issue 262 resolution
?         2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to 
                      implement 262 and 273
?         2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to 
                      incorporate the text at 2004Dec/0022.html
?         2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to 
                      resolve 275 editorially 
DONE [.6] 2005-01-13: Umit to reply to issuer 270
DONE [.7] 2005-01-13: Umit to respond to Ian Hickson 
                      about issue 271
?         2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to call out the difference 
                      between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 in respect to 
                      single interface per service, and 
                      indicate alternatives
?         2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to rewrite ONMR as Best practice.
DONE      2005-01-19: Arthur and Asir to look for more edge cases 
                      ref LC20 and LC27.
DONE [.4] 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to add the intersection 
                      rule for f&p composition.
?         2005-01-20: Asir to think about mU and possibly 
                      propose some clarification text
?         2005-01-20: Arthur to come up with primer text 
                      to show fault reuse and fault code.
RETIRED   2005-02-03: Members who have recently raised issues 
                      should check that these were reflected in 
                      the issues list.
?         2005-02-03: Asir to work with primer eds on SOAP 1.1
?         2005-02-03: Part 1 editors to incorporate text from 
                      Jan/0026 and Feb/0006.
DONE      2005-02-10: DBooth to mail Arthur change to wording on media 
                      type registration, Arthur to incorporate.
DONE      2005-02-10: JMarsh to ask Henry to respond about media type 
                      issues with examples
?         2005-02-17: Asir to review table on how import and include 
                      actually work (added by JJM)
[Dup]     2005-02-17: bijan and JacekK to supply text for primer 
                      section on RDF mapping 
DONE [.3] 2005-02-17: Marsh to reclasify LC107 as editorial and add 
                      reference to Asir's amendment 
DONE [.5] 2005-02-17: Marsh to send out a poll today, allowing 
                      clarification of options by EOB tomorrow, 
                      poll next week before the call
?         2005-02-17: Umit and Anish to complete editorial work on 
                      media type description before ftf
?         2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC107
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005Feb/0182.html
[.5] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD_AppendixE/
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0064.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0065.html

F&P composition done

media type document: updated version coming soon


<dbooth> dbooth: Get me your sections ASAP!

Media Type Description issues

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2005Feb/0000.html

I18n issues related to media type stuff

discussion whether adding negotiation stuff into media type description is a good idea .. the basic requirement is description, not negotiation

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0066.html

"normalized value" means XML normalization not things like case equality .. so the spec needs to make that clear

considered editorial .. Umit will follow up

<Arthur> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0068.html

Component Model Discussion

component model discussion .. talking about arthur's proposal to move properties have [in scope] kind of notion

<asir> +1 to the first part of Arthur's proposal

no objections to adopting arthur's proposal to consistify f&p for interfaces

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0060.html

<Marsh> RESOUTION: Adopt Arthur's proposal 2005Feb/0068

z notation starts with component model; so very direct mapping of say interface components to the z interface schema. Additional constraints become z variables, e.g., in scope properties and in scope features. Arthur is writing logical formulae for computing these. Question is whether to make these directly in the component model and thereby remove Arthur's fun of wriitng these formulae.

Advantage is that this makes it analogous to how the Infoset namespace stuff works.

Asir: not convinced [in scope] will really help

[lots of explanation of family hierarchies and how things are computed; sure sounded complicated]

<uyalcina> +1 to asir

<kliu> +1 to asir

glen: points out that it may be easier to have a method that computes

roberto: agrees with asir.

umit: agrees with roberto

<Roberto> +1 for fixing the interface component

<uyalcina> +1

<asir> +1 for fixing the interface component

daveO: wonders whether people want to keep the component model closer to the input syntax and have other stuff be addon functions on the component model

objection to dropping proposal to add inscope f&p? nope

proposal from arthur: un-flatten operations and faults in interfaces so that the component model only shows the ops that are immediately declared in the current interface and others have to be found by looking at the super interfaces

no objections to adopting arthur's proposal

RESOLUTION: Close issue 104 by changing the definition of {operations} and {faults} to only include ones directly declared on the respective elements.


<bijan> Where are the results?

<Marsh> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD_AppendixE/results

<bijan> Thanks!

<bijan> The Bijan Option Rules!

<asir> thanks Bijan

<bijan> You are quite welcome :)

<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to appoint an editor to publish Appendix E as a WG Note. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/24-ws-desc-minutes#action01]

<dbooth> Prevailing option: "Publish the material in Appendix E as a WG Note."

LC70 resolution: appendix E to become a note

<asir> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC70

I have to drop off .. can someone else take over please?

<inserted> Scribe: Kevin

<inserted> ScribeNick: kliu

see you sanjiva, I will pick up from here

<sanjiva> thanks Kevin .. bye

discussion on whether we should say something about parallel schema definitions

amy: why not

arthur: does that mean we allow two different schemas define a same Qname?

amy: if there are mulitple type definition in use, presumably you should have some semantics attached to help decide which one should be used
... we don't define that, not saying we can't

DaveO: does schema has the same problem that defintions of same thing in different place?

asir: don't know

jmarsh: we have explored that with wsdl1.1 and 20

arthur: each type system has its own element declaration component

jacek: it might be slight inconsistency

<asir> James Clark has a mechanism to mix schema languages - see http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html

what happens if one use element, another use owl attribute

we may say something in the spec that if there are mulitple pointers in the message to different schema declarations there might be problems

asir: we can make it simple by ruling out multiple schema languages

jmarsh: is that a desirable way to go?

asir: there should be only one schema pointer in use

jmarsh: there are a few options, postpone to f2f

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to propose we include a note in the spec saying that if someone combines multiple schema languages may be a problem, and we have not solved this problem.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to appoint an editor to publish Appendix E as a WG Note. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/24-ws-desc-minutes#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.115 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/02/24 18:28:34 $